Cern and String Theory

[Yahweh]

no.

normal

...

2: in accordance with scientific laws [ant: {paranormal}]

That is a perfectly good definition.

Now, what exists which is outside of scientific laws?

you are saying that nothing exists except static linearity.

Excuse me? Where did I say this?

I would believe that I have never said this, I would also believe you are putting words in my mouth which I dont agree with.

Would you mind defining "static linearity"?

do you comprehend how possible-impossible that is? i'm both confirming and denying your assertion as i type this. we have a word that combines the Left and Right of Normal; it is PARANORMAL.

"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?"

Its is possible that the answer to that question is both "yes" and "no". However, that answer is either "yes", or it is either "no", it cannot ever be "yes and no at the same time".

Given this, how is it possible that you are both defending and confirming my assertion at the same time?

 

[Answer]

That is a perfectly good definition.

Now, what exists which is outside of scientific laws?


Excuse me? Where did I say this?

I would believe that I have never said this, I would also believe you are putting words in my mouth which I dont agree with.

Would you mind defining "static linearity"?


"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?"

Its is possible that the answer to that question is both "yes" and "no". However, that answer is either "yes", or it is either "no", it cannot ever be "yes and no at the same time".

Given this, how is it possible that you are both defending and confirming my assertion at the same time?

i've already answered that question.. let's see.. 248 times? quantum non-linearity allows both things to be possible at once. because all things are both true and false; all things look like theirself in a mirror.

 

[Yahweh]

i've already answered that question.. let's see.. 248 times? quantum non-linearity allows both things to be possible at once. because all things are both true and false;

Forgive me for being ignorant on the subject, but I dont understand you.

Can you define "Quantum non-linearity"?

And how does this Quantum non-linearity allow for things to be both true and false?

all things look like theirself in a mirror.

Images in a mirror are smaller than the object itself, the images in the mirror are 2 dimensional, and the images are horizontally inverted.

Furthermore, you cannot see a mirror in the reflection of a mirror, only the non-mirror images which have been reflected back and forth.

You are quite incorrect if you believe all things look like themselves in a mirror.

 

[Answer]

Forgive me for being ignorant on the subject, but I dont understand you.

Can you define "Quantum non-linearity"?

And how does this Quantum non-linearity allow for things to be both true and false?


Images in a mirror are smaller than the object itself, the images in the mirror are 2 dimensional, and the images are horizontally inverted.

Furthermore, you cannot see a mirror in the reflection of a mirror, only the non-mirror images which have been reflected back and forth.

You are quite incorrect if you believe all things look like themselves in a mirror.

you are thinking way too analytically.. "in a mirror" i meant mirror images, not an actual physical mirror. don't you see how your misunderstanding utterly controls everything you perceive? have you have seen black without white? up without down? left without right? quantum-totality=para,physical-linearity=normal
..

all things require opposite but the opposite is the creation of false separation. there is no "I".

 

[Answer]

no explanation would be required if you would just accept the conclusion of quantum mechanics: that you have no free-will! YOU ARE A PERFECT BEING. look closely next time you make a mistake, because it wasn't.

 

[Answer]

time flows backwards.

all change leads to further perfection.

 

[Answer]

were all one mind. if stopped to think you'd know this was you talking to yourself

no insanity is required, it's obvious right in front of you..

i can explain it a million times but all you have to know is that every explanation leads to the same thing.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Answer,
I value your opinion highly, and wondered if you might look over this book written by Iacchus and tell us what you think about it. I'd love to hear it.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Now, back to CERN.

 

[Answer]

Answer,
I value your opinion highly, and wondered if you might look over this book written by Iacchus and tell us what you think about it. I'd love to hear it.

He has already awakened. To accept is to crucify the flesh. All is symbolic, He died for your..

SINS
I
N
G
U
L
A
R
I
T
I
E
S

- - - -

i will read your book..

 

[Yahweh]

you are thinking way too analytically..

Thanks

"in a mirror" i meant mirror images, not an actual physical mirror. don't you see how your misunderstanding utterly controls everything you perceive?

You need to define yourself properly. There was no misunderstanding on my part, you offered no descripting of what you meant by the word "mirror", I was left to infer a definition, therefore there was no misunderstanding on my part.

have you have seen black without white?

Yes.

Black is the absence of color in the Visible Light Spectrum.
White is the presence of all color across the the Visible Light Spectrum.

Pure white light can be shown to composed of light with photons vibrating at frequencies across the visible light spectrum.

Pure blackness can be shown where there is no light such as a room which is empty of all lisible light sources.

up without down? left without right?

There is no "up", no "down", no "left", no "right".

There is only "Above [object here]", "below [object here]", "to the left of", and "to the right of".

quantum-totality=para,physical-linearity=normal
..

You need to define what all of these words mean.

What is "Quantum-Totality"?

What is "Physical Linearity"?

Why does "Quantum-Totality" = "Physical Linearity"?

all things require opposite but the opposite is the creation of false separation. there is no "I".

Why do all things require an opposite?

Why is the opposite a creation of "false seperation"?

Why is there no "I"?


Define and describe yourself accurately well, Mr. Answer, otherwise you cannot hope to sell your ideas.

 

[Answer]

Thanks


You need to define yourself properly. There was no misunderstanding on my part, you offered no descripting of what you meant by the word "mirror", I was left to infer a definition, therefore there was no misunderstanding on my part.


Yes.

Black is the absence of color in the Visible Light Spectrum.
White is the presence of all color across the the Visible Light Spectrum.

Pure white light can be shown to composed of light with photons vibrating at frequencies across the visible light spectrum.

Pure blackness can be shown where there is no light such as a room which is empty of all lisible light sources.


There is no "up", no "down", no "left", no "right".

There is only "Above [object here]", "below [object here]", "to the left of", and "to the right of".


You need to define what all of these words mean.

What is "Quantum-Totality"?

What is "Physical Linearity"?

Why does "Quantum-Totality" = "Physical Linearity"?


Why do all things require an opposite?

Why is the opposite a creation of "false seperation"?

Why is there no "I"?


Define and describe yourself accurately well, Mr. Answer, otherwise you cannot hope to sell your ideas.

quit playing dumb.

You need to define yourself properly. There was no misunderstanding on my part, you offered no descripting of what you meant by the word "mirror", I was left to infer a definition, therefore there was no misunderstanding on my part.

type it twice, makes it so. quit playing dumb.
you know that without ever seeing black you could never see white. you've stringed together a mountain of concepts that become meaningless without the physical brain.

i've already said that, at a quantum-level, there is no such thing as distance and all things are interconnected. quantum-totality=0, what existed before the metaphorical "Big Bang"..

 

[Tez]

Folks this thread becomes much more readable if you go to "User CP" and tweak a few options...

To answer espritch's question: We do collide particles together. When we do so at high enough energies, particles different to the ones we collided initially come out of the collision - and we have a precise mathematical description of how many and what types come out.

The most inutitive picture for the math (note: intuition is subjective!) is that the quantum vacuum in the region of the collision is bubbling over with virtual particles of all different types. Because theyre virtual they can't live for long, and cant trigger a "real" detector. However, by compressing enough energy in the region, you can give energy to those virtual particles, they become real and then you see them.

THe problem is that the density of the virtual particles is such that you most likely get out the low energy particles (photons, electrons, positrons, mesons etc) that we know already - so you have to do a lot of pummeling (and careful filtering) before you can spot the new ones.

Which leads to the following idea: Suppose, instead of colliding the particles in "free space" we collide them in a modified vacuum (the vacuum can be modified by the presence of nearby atoms for example). We can construct this vacuum so as to have a low density of virtual photons, electrons, positrons, mesons etc. Then less of these are produced, and the chances of spotting the new stuff is greater.

I had that idea about 5 years ago. I know that the effects of a modified vacuum can be noticed - because I found a few of these scattering experiments in which a source of "noise" was nearby atoms. However I've never gotten around to calculating something concrete (my numerical skills arent good enough). I have a close friend who is an experimental physicist on ZEUS (one fo the fermilab collider teams) and he loves the idea. However, the inertia of these huge groups is extremely large, and it would take some convincing to get them to actually do anything - which is why its on the backburner for now...

To answer Lucy's question: Supersymmetry can appear in effective theories and not just with the fundamental particles. I vaguely remember reading about the nuclear stuff, and IIRC thats basically what they had done.

Incidentally, supersymmetry is a very useful mathematical tool - even for solving the 1D Schroedinger equation, which is the first thing we all learn. Witten showed this as an aside in a paper in the 80's - and its led to a classification of pretty much all the exactly solvable potentials.
To get some idea of this look at pages 13-17 of http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9405029 Its also presented simply in some textbook that I cant remember...

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Answer,

This is the last response I am going to make to you in this thread. My purpose in addressing you was not to answer a bunch of incoherant questions, but to get you to stop crapping up this thread with your nonsense.

It is painfully obvious that you are just trying to annoy people. Please go away.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Yahweh]

Folks, I think I should apologize for participating the in the cluttering up of this thread.

I was merely playing with the troll. At least a good social inference can be made from the exchanges between myself and answer: Trolls get so cute when they're mad.

 

[Prester John]

Tx Tez for getting this thread back on track. I love reading about particle physics, quantum mechanics etc if tho' i don't really understand it.

 

[metacristi]

The empirical rejection of Bells' inequalities by the Aspect experiment of 1982 and later,improved,versions of the experiment (ovelooking the criticisms regarding their validity) count as a falsification of the assumptions made in the premises,therefore one of the premises is not true.The usual interpretation is that the premise postulating that 'local hidden variables exist' is false.Seen from a strictly epistemological point of view I would argue this is the maximum we can reject,indeed there is no proof yet that non local hidden variables cannot exist or that a theory using them is incompatible with the results of the mathematical formalism of QM.Quantum realism is still a feasible possibility.However this is only one of the assumptions in the premises.Copenhagenists for example reject altoghether the premise that hidden variables as whole exist,totally renouncing at the principle of realism.This is acceptable from a logical standpoint but not from an experimental one,as I argued above.Another assumption used in the case of Bells' theorem is that formal logic is a valid way of reasoning even when dealing with quantum phenomena.Have we the right to put it in doubt?I don't think we have this right since it proved very successful before in all domains of science (the hypothetical-deductive method used even in the case of Bell's theorem being at the base of the scientific method),basically we have no reason to think it does not hold in this case.

Finally what proves the result of Aspect experiments outside the interpretation that local hidden variables are incompatible with predictions of standard QM?Aspect himself accept the existence of nonlocality though it does not also imply the possibility of sending information at superluminal velocities.Gribbin talks of 'particles that were once together in an interaction remain in some sense parts of a single system which responds together to further interactions'.Whatever the cause if there is one,the nonlocality is 'an embarassing fact' (as Penrose put it in one of his books) for it seems to imply also that all particles are somehow connected.Gribbin for example even note that 'If everything that ever interacted in the Big Bang maintains its connection with everything it interacted with, then every particle in every star and galaxy that we can see "knows" about the existence of every other particle'.As far as I know this view is not sustained by physicists,there is no good reason now to think that all particles are nonlocally connected,the main view being that interactions with the environment or our measurements cause the collapse of the wavefunction quantum,entanglement being lost.Moreover,as far as I know,there are some tentative explanations (based on the fact that quantum particles are indistinguishable) using quantum field theory showing how nonlocality is possible without implying any superluminal motion (or the intervention of consciousnesses).I will not attempt to citicise the argumentation used (one objection being that it is good to explain the phenomenon for small scales equivalent with a wavelength of a quantum particle),maybe it is true in absolute and we cannot put it in evidence...Finally it is true that there are no good reasons now to think that the holistic view is the unique,inevitable logically and experimentally,alternative.My only observation is that the holistic view is a very serious philosophical proposal,it has a strong logical base in Bohm's Interpretation,which is still a viable alternative.I don't think it would be rational to minimize it.But of course from a strictly epistemological point of view there is no good reason now to claim that human mind is vital for the collapse of the wavefunction or that the strange connection at distance proves the existence of a 'single whole' (or an universal consciousness).

 

[espritch]

Tez, thanks for getting back to me on that. I had pretty much given up hope for this thread.

I was under the impression that the particles produced in a collider were all derived from the particles involved in the collision. I had never heard that the virtual particles of the vacuum were involved. That’s also the first time I’ve ever heard that you could modify the vacuum. That sounds like altering nothing which doesn’t make much intuitive sense. Of course if you accept the existence of vacuum energy then the vacuum is actually something rather than nothing which I guess just goes to show how useless intuition is in discussing quantum mechanics.

 

[jj]

Tez -

That's interesting, you basically modify the probabilities of space by doing something near mass? Is that it?

An interesting idea. Can the various high powered beams be focused that well?

 

[Mark]

The empirical rejection of Bells' inequalities by the Aspect experiment of 1982 and later,improved,versions of the experiment (ovelooking the criticisms regarding their validity) count as a falsification of the assumptions made in the premises,therefore one of the premises is not true.The usual interpretation is that the premise postulating that 'local hidden variables exist' is false.Seen from a strictly epistemological point of view I would argue this is the maximum we can reject,indeed there is no proof yet that non local hidden variables cannot exist or that a theory using them is incompatible with the results of the mathematical formalism of QM.Quantum realism is still a feasible possibility.However this is only one of the assumptions in the premises.Copenhagenists for example reject altoghether the premise that hidden variables as whole exist,totally renouncing at the principle of realism.This is acceptable from a logical standpoint but not from an experimental one,as I argued above.Another assumption used in the case of Bells' theorem is that formal logic is a valid way of reasoning even when dealing with quantum phenomena.Have we the right to put it in doubt?I don't think we have this right since it proved very successful before in all domains of science (the hypothetical-deductive method used even in the case of Bell's theorem being at the base of the scientific method),basically we have no reason to think it does not hold in this case.

Finally what proves the result of Aspect experiments outside the interpretation that local hidden variables are incompatible with predictions of standard QM?Aspect himself accept the existence of nonlocality though it does not also imply the possibility of sending information at superluminal velocities.Gribbin talks of 'particles that were once together in an interaction remain in some sense parts of a single system which responds together to further interactions'.Whatever the cause if there is one,the nonlocality is 'an embarassing fact' (as Penrose put it in one of his books) for it seems to imply also that all particles are somehow connected.Gribbin for example even note that 'If everything that ever interacted in the Big Bang maintains its connection with everything it interacted with, then every particle in every star and galaxy that we can see "knows" about the existence of every other particle'.As far as I know this view is not sustained by physicists,there is no good reason now to think that all particles are nonlocally connected,the main view being that interactions with the environment or our measurements cause the collapse of the wavefunction quantum,entanglement being lost.Moreover,as far as I know,there are some tentative explanations (based on the fact that quantum particles are indistinguishable) using quantum field theory showing how nonlocality is possible without implying any superluminal motion (or the intervention of consciousnesses).I will not attempt to citicise the argumentation used (one objection being that it is good to explain the phenomenon for small scales equivalent with a wavelength of a quantum particle),maybe it is true in absolute and we cannot put it in evidence...Finally it is true that there are no good reasons now to think that the holistic view is the unique,inevitable logically and experimentally,alternative.My only observation is that the holistic view is a very serious philosophical proposal,it has a strong logical base in Bohm's Interpretation,which is still a viable alternative.I don't think it would be rational to minimize it.But of course from a strictly epistemological point of view there is no good reason now to claim that human mind is vital for the collapse of the wavefunction or that the strange connection at distance proves the existence of a 'single whole' (or an universal consciousness).

Would you help me out here? How does this work around the logic in Von Neumann's Chain? I have been struggling with this for some time...